On Nov 28, 2007 6:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
> > > pacakgedb, telling who is really allowed to touch the package?
> > > and select 'group members can commit?'.
> >
> > IMO, the easiest approach would be to use "perl-sig" or similar (eg. an
> > "email alias" or a packagedb "alias" (should such thing exist)) as
> > owner ;)
>
> Which, we can't do, without dirty hacks, currently.
>
> You should talk to Toshio about this.
I'm unfamiliar with the limitations of the accounts/grouping/packagedb
system, but if we can have the accounts system enforce a requirement
that members of one group must be a subset of another group (e.g.
perl-sig group members must be members of the cla-done group), would
this satisfy the requirement that all package owners have signed
CLA's? Can we have a group own a package?
I'm buying what Ralf is saying here: to attempt to have collective
ownership via individual ownership and extensive co-maintainers is
another variant of "dirty hacks".
Of course, I may be totally misunderstanding how the systems work
together here :)
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
